Award-winning film on typical Amerikan police corruption deserves wider
distribution

Murder on a Sunday Morning (2001)
Directed by Jean-Xavier Lestrade

This film won the 2002 Academy Award for best documentary -- despite having no
distribution contract in the United $tates. It follows the trial of a
fifteen-year-old, Jacksonville, Florida Black man, who police falsely accuse of
murder. While police interrogate this young man, they take him deep into the
woods at dusk and beat him. He then signs a confession which they write for him.

"Murder... " does a passable job telling this story in an entertaining manner,
making use of conventions of the courtroom drama. It's helped in this regard by
an arrogant public defender -- we use the term "arrogant" in its positive sense
-- who relishes the idea of "screwing" and publicly humiliating corrupt cops.
And these typical Amerikan cops are certainly corrupt. Faced with a difficult
crime to solve, they simply round up the "usual suspects," settling for a Black
man who didn't even fit the sole eyewitness' original description. Leaving aside
the possibility that the eyewitness was a racist cracker, the police present
this young man to him under suggestive circumstances and then ignore
inconsistencies in his testimony. The police also do not seriously follow up on
the young man's alibi. Nor do they even try to find other witnesses to place the
suspect on the scene or back up their case -- they are content to rely on their
eyewitness and forced confession. There is nothing here viewers haven't seen on
"NYPD Blue" -- except "Murder" correctly criticizes these underhanded tactics as
reprehensible attacks on the liberties of innocent individuals.

In her closing arguments, the prosecutor tells the jury that if they believe the
cops were as corrupt and inept as the defense claimed, they should not only find
the defendant not guilty, but in essence they should find the whole Amerikan
system guilty and corrupt. Well, who are we to disagree with the honorable
prosecutor. Especially since the problems highlighted in this one case are
endemic to the Amerikan (in)justice system. For example, academic studies have
shown that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and subject to
suggestion by cops and prosecutors whose careers depend on a "tough on crime"
image. Yet eyewitness testimony is often enough to convict somebody "beyond a
reasonable doubt"; in the mid-90s over 80,000 trials relied on eyewitness
testimony.(1)

And we haven't even touched on the bass-ackwards definition of crime in this
country, which throws young mothers in prison for decades for possessing illegal
drugs, while mass murderers and mega-thieves in the top ranks of the government
and industry live in luxurious peace -- or are held up as heroes.
Our biggest complaint with "Murder" is that it doesn't make the explicit
connection between this case and the broader problems with the Amerikan
(in)justice system. In fact, the film closes with the stereotypical line that
"the system worked in the end." There are subtle hints that the filmmakers don't
believe this -- but too subtle for our taste. We recommend the film as an
eye-opener. Viewers need to follow up and investigate all aspects of the
Amerikan (in)justice system -- not just take this as an isolated incident.

Notes:
1. MIM Notes 99, April 1995.